Archive Result

1

Wisdom teachings NYC 05 Lam Rim Chen mo

Part I

Talk 2: 1-20-05

Welcome this evening. We have been talking about lhag tong, as it is known in Tibetan. In Sanskrit it is vipasyana. Basically in English it is wisdom. The question is how we do this. In Ann Arbor we are going according to the 9th chapter of Shantideva's bodhisattvacharyavatara. This chapter starts by saying:

yen la di ta tam che ne

tu pay she rab dun du sung

All the above, all other paramitas, [from generosity to concentration,]

were taught by Buddha in order to develop wisdom.

That means that truly, it is about wisdom. In essence, all other teachings and practices of the Buddha are meant to develop wisdom. With my background, where I come from, when I say 'teachings' I understand that as my practice. In the west, the culture is such that when you hear 'teachings' you probably think it means lectures, talks and presentations, rather than practice. That is a cultural difference. I want you to be aware that whenever I mention 'Buddha's teachings', I don't mean lectures or talks, or Buddha's books, but the practice we do for which Buddha has given guidance on the basis of his own personal development and experience. So Shantideva is saying that all the teachings of Buddha are actually meant to develop wisdom. Wisdom is like the eyes. All other practices are blind without wisdom. That tells us how important it is.

Love and compassion are necessary, no doubt. But when you talk about the essence of the teaching, wisdom is even more important than compassion and love. The simple reason is that compassion and love can completely overcome negative emotions such as hatred, because they directly contradict them. But they might not be able to overcome attachment and obsession. They don't directly contradict them. But wisdom directly contradicts ignorance. I am sticking here to the traditional terminology.

That ignorance happens to be the root or source of all other negative emotions and thereby all negative actions and negative karmas. When you boil it down to the real culprit, the real source of all problems, deep down, there is ignorance. Whether ignorance is the best term we will figure out later.

What does wisdom do? Wisdom completely clears whatever confusion the ignorance has created. Therefore it defeats all other negative thoughts, actions, karmas and so forth. That is the reason why wisdom is even more important than love and compassion. With these reasons Shantideva rightly states that Buddhas has presented and taught all other activities in order to develop wisdom. That gives you some idea how hard you are going to get hit this year. Really. It is a hard and difficult subject. Under these circumstances we can't just sit here and share our points of view. I can't just say, "It is my understanding, my experience, and so forth." If I do this, I would be misleading you. Also, if we talk casually, it might not be in the proper order.

To have a proper base to talk about wisdom I can't find anything better than Tsong Khapa's lam rim. Whether it is the lam rim chen mo or the medium lam rim, it is going to work. If it is not based on that, it will not be comprehensive and not so useful.

Tsong Khapa, I should say, is the greatest Tibetan master, saint and scholar, and actually known as living Manjushri. Manjushri is the god of wisdom. All Buddhas' wisdom combined together is taking the physical form of the yidam or deity Manjushri. So on this particular point we cannot find any source better than that. I am not saying that because I am a Gelug pa and Tsong Khapa happens to be the founder of the Gelug pa. That is not the point at all. On the wisdom level Tsong Khapa in the late 1300s has completely revolutionized the understanding from what it had been during the whole Tibetan Buddhist history from the 7th century onwards. That goes for any of the Buddhist schools in Tibet.

It is based on outlines. The teaching should be based on certain outlines. If you don't have these, you can get lost. If you don't like the word "outlines" you can call it "power points", if you like. Basically, Tsong Khapa has four outlines for the subject of wisdom:

How can you find this wisdom and where does it come from

What is it? Is there just one type or several

How to meditate on it

How do I know I have achieved it

There may be subdivisions for each of the points, but we may or may not be able to follow them all. These basic four points, however, are important.

How can you find wisdom and where does it come from

There are two points under this heading:

In general, where are you going to get it

How to establish it

Where are you going to get it

It is necessary for us to depend on a very dependable guide, learning from the guide and function accordingly. According to Tibetan culture there would be again more subdivisions. But in essence, you really need a dependable person, learn from that person and meditate. Tsong Khapa says, "It is not just I who introduces it this way, but this is according to the Buddha and the disciples of the Buddha, particularly Kamalashila."

Kamalashila is the great Indian master who came to Tibet and presented the meditation part in three different sections, which was made into a book later. Kamalashila insisted on this. Tsong Khapa never says, "I know this", but rather, "I learnt from here and there". That is his style. Although he may be living Manjushri he never says, "I know this". Now Tsong Khapa says, "According to Kamalashila, this wisdom is very difficult to understand. You really have to base all your points on a great learned person's faultless teachings. One has to learn, meditate and analyze. Then you have to gain experience. This is the absolutely necessary requirement, really a prerequisite. If you don't gain that understanding then you will never gain the true wisdom at all. According to Kamalashila that is impossible."

That is the conclusion Tsong Khapa draws. In other words, in a general sense wisdom is knowledge. Almost every knowledge is wisdom. But here we are talking about a very specific kind of understanding, not just a very simple knowledge. Simple knowledge, simple understanding, is something we can definitely gain on our level. But that might not be discriminating wisdom. That is the wisdom we are looking for. Perhaps what we are not looking for is indiscriminate thoughts. That is the kind of thought which has no discipline. In our western culture we may even encourage that type of thought. But here, Tsong Khapa quotes Kamalisha and within that brings Kamalashila's quote of Buddha. This is really making a very important point. We do need to develop discriminating wisdom. What blocks the discriminating wisdom? The indiscriminate thoughts. This is my interpretation.

The point is not to let it go indiscriminate. The human mind is such a great thing. It has no limit for whatsoever, whether it is knowledge, understanding or anything. If we had all the time on our hands and pick up all the information of generations after generations, then we could allow all indiscriminating thoughts and go on and experience and experience and find out if it is working or not working, working or not working. But we only have a limited number of years. We are each of us one individual who is looking for enlightenment. That may be different than a society looking for more truth. Without time limits we could go and experience everything and learn our lessons, whether something was right or wrong. By going through a lot of wrong things something right can come out. That is how the Buddha did it. He kept on discarding the wrong things and through that established the right things. That is what we normally do with every discovery and development. But when you look inside and try to develop enlightenment as one individual preferably in this life time or at least in the next or something, I don't know if we have the luxury of indiscriminately experimenting with everything and not getting anything.

We have been talking in the afternoon: there can be intelligent people who can keep on thinking and thinking, yet never draw any conclusion, or even draw wrong conclusions or don't even know where they are. This is what I am thinking, when I talk about indiscriminate thoughts. There must be a reason why Buddha, when he talked about the five wisdoms, one of them is called so sor tak pe ye she - discriminating wisdom.

Tsong Khapa therefore says that you have to follow a reliable source. You have to rely on one of the forerunners, shin den son je, one who opens the door. According to Mahayana Buddhism there are only two of them: Nagarjuna and Asanga, the great early teachers. There are 80 mahasiddhas and then the Tibetans add four more, so there are now 84 mahasiddhas. Then there are 16 arhats. But most importantly there are the gen dun cho nyi, the Six Ornaments and Two Excellences. Among those are Nagarjuna, Asanga, Bhavaviveka, Chandrakirti and all the great masters we look up to. Interestingly, His Holiness the present Dalai Lama, emphasizes the early Nalanda monastic teachers very much. He made up that list of 17 Nalanda teachers and he composed prayers and even had drawings made. When I saw His Holiness last time and was just leaving, someone ran after me and said, "You have to take this with me." And he gave me photographs of these 17 and the prayers composed for them. When I looked at them, all the masters I just mentioned are on that list. It looks like they had nothing to do with the other great monastery of Vikramalashila. On the other hand, Atisha accepted the same teachings and he was from Vikramalashila, so it has got to be both those great monasteries.

You may think that Nagarjuna and Asanga are the Two Excellences. But in fact they are counted among the Six Ornaments. But out of the Six Exellences the Two Forerunners are Nagarjuna and Asanga.

What Tsong Khapa and Kamalashila are trying to tell us is to rely on one of those two forerunners. Now it becomes really interesting. Buddha had made a prophecy:

After I have gone there will be two guys named Nagarjuna and Asanga, 300 (or 600) years apart.

Truly speaking, Nagarjuna is considered by all as profound, but in the Indian history there are three different Nagarjuna mentioned. That would explain the belief of many Tibetans that Nagarjuna lived up to 600 years. That may be an example of indiscriminate thought! Most probably there were three different ones, one after another.

The teachings of the Buddha are categorized in two categories:

tang dön - indirect

nyi dön - straight forward

Maybe that is not a good translation. Do any of the professors and scholars here know? No? That is okay. In Buddhism anyone is allowed to -and not only that - should say "I don't know" - unless you are a Buddha. Nowadays, in the west it is different. Here one says, "I know everything. I like to advertise." I am kidding. According to Buddhism you are supposed to say, "I don't know." Okay, another translation of these two terms would be interpretable and direct teachings. In order to do that we have to be able to make the distinction between what is direct and what is not. That becomes difficult for a person like me, or for that matter, all of us. Since we cannot do that, we have to follow someone who has already done that work. That is why they tell you to follow that way.

For wisdom then, don't follow anybody else, except Nagarjuna. That is the essence message behind the message that we need to follow a reliable person, study a reliable work, find that and meditate on that. It is not telling us, "Learn from me", nor even from Tsong Khapa, nor from Kamalashila, but from Nagarjuna. That is for wisdom. For the prajnaparamita, the Transcendental Wisdom, we follow Asanga a lot. Wisdom in Tibetan is often called ta wa, view. It is about what you see. There are hotels which are called 'Riverview', 'Lakeview', 'Valley View' or 'Mountain View'. If you go to these places you may see the river, lake, valley or mountain. So in regard to wisdom, finally you will see it. That's why it is called ta wa. What you are going to see is the true reality. You may call it True View Hotel, a five star or six star hotel. That's why the traditional teachings tell you to search for the view, find the view.

How do I follow Nagarjuna? Can one read Nagarjuna? There are six main titles on wisdom he wrote:

A major one is called tsa wa she rab - the root of wisdom

In that the first words are:

It is not from me, not from others, nor from both, others and me, nor does it come from no cause, whatever existence there is, it has not grown, nothing is increasing, nothing is decreasing.

Nagarjuna is considered to have found the deepest, most profound points. This is accepted by all schools of Tibetan Buddhism. Nyingmas, Sakyas, Kargyus, Gelugpas, everyone will say, "We are following Nagarjuna." So there must be something correct in what he said. Also the earlier Indian Buddhist traditions like those coming out of Nalanda or Vikramalashila all seem to be following Nagarjuna.

The main disciple of Nagarjuna is Aryadeva. Among Buddhist scholars these two are known as pak pa yab se, the Father and the Son. They were not really father and son, but teacher and student. Both are accepted by all great teachers thereafter, like Buddhapalita, Bhavaviveka, Chandrakirti, Shantideva and so on. They are known as great u ma pas, madyamikas, or centrists. They are the core, the most important presenters of the view.

This history may have nothing to do with you, but after all, all our teachings here are based on them. Also, later, when you tell someone that you attended this teaching on wisdom and they ask you who are the main u ma pas, you have some idea. It gives you some interesting points. Otherwise, if we don't know who the main u ma pas are, people will think we have got no idea about the wisdom, which system we follow and so on.

You may think that this has nothing to do with meditation or practice, but I tell you that is wrong. It has everything to with practice and meditation. If you don't get this right, there is nothing to be meditated on in wisdom.

The core group then are Nagarjuna and Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Bhavaviveka, Chandrakirti an Shantideva. The last four are called the followers or Nagarjuna and Aryadeva, who are the main presenters of the view.

The main point here is this: Is there anything that exists externally?

We will say, "Yes, there are a lot of things that externally exist, like houses, cars, etc." But in fact it is questionable whether anything externally exists. The Tibetan term is zhi röl gyi dön or for short: zhi dön. Some u ma pas do accept an external truth. They are known as do de chope u ma pa. Those u ma pas who don't accept external truth are known as nal jor chope u ma pa. So even the u ma pas are divided into two categories. The reason why this is debated is that Nagarjuna's and Aryadeva's works don't make a clear cut presentation of whether external objects do exist or not.

For example, Bhavaviveka accepts external existence, while Shantideva and others don't.

If you don't get the distinction of external existence, then later, when you search for the truth, you have to discard so many things, until you are finally left with one and you will never be able to discard properly. That's why there are two categories even within the u ma pas. Chandrakirti is considered to be the most important presenter of wisdom, following Buddhapalita. He comments on Nagarjuna and Aryadeva and based on that makes it clear that external existence is wrong. Therefore, we follow Chandrakirti. The Tibetans have another division of the two u ma pa schools as u ma rang gyu pa and u ma tal gyur wa. Bhavaviveka and his followers will accept external existence and Chandarkirti and his followers don't.

Tsong Khapa states that there can be no question that Nagarjuna and Aryadeva have the correct presentation. Then he says that Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti are very important, because Buddhapalita correctly interprets the essence of Nagarjuna's teaching and Chandrakirti has written two important books, particularly the u ma la jug pa or madyamakavatara, the real essence of what true wisdom is, commenting on the essence message of Nagarjuna. In his other book he is making the explanation of the words He is clarifying the words and the meanings. Because of his two important presentations Tsong Khapa follows Chandrakirti. Not only Tsong Khapa does, but also the Nyingma, Sakya, and Kargyu follow him for those reasons.

There is a big question whether the division on the viewpoints of Buddhapalita and Bhavaviveka, which are articulated in the systems of the tal gyur wa and rang gyu pa, have been formulated by the Tibetans or have been there already in the time of the earlier Indian teachers. I don't know the answer. Some say it was already there, some say it wasn't. But whether that division was there in India already or not, the viewpoints are not different. The presentation is true. Whatever presentation was done earlier, they [the Tibetans] followed it later.

Why are we discussing this here? It may sound like it is just philosophy, but the view, the true wisdom, is the true essence of Buddhist philosophy. What I understand is that philosophers search for the truth. We are really searching for the truth. At that level a lot of philosophical knowledge is needed.

That is what I would like to say tonight. I am going to throw a lot of words and points around, which don't mean anything to you. But what you have really got here is what the traditional teachers do. They all follow Nagarjuna. His followers then rely on either Bhavaviveka or Buddhapalita. They follow both of them, but when they differ, most follow Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti.

You have to follow somebody who has done it before. You cannot just sit by yourself and analyze and try to find it. You never will be able to. So better follow somebody who is reliable. That is Nagarjuna and his followers, Bhavaviveka and Buddhapalita. They are both commonly accepted, but whenever there are differences we follow Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti. That is the bottom line.

Why is following them necessary? Because the wisdom we are trying to find is the discriminating wisdom, not indiscriminate thoughts. We need discriminating wisdom because that gives us discipline and a basic framework, beyond which we cannot go. Otherwise, indiscriminate thoughts could go on and think why the tips of rose thorns are so sharp and who made them so sharp? When I was a kid, my teachers would tell me, "Who made the peas round? Why is the barley shaped slightly different?" If you let your thoughts go indiscriminate, there is no end to what you could think. You could think up some theory that some 20000000 years ago some bearded guy did it. You can think all of that and in the end get nothing. So you have to have discipline.

If you have the luxury of unlimited time you could go and experience and finally, you would be forced into the right point somehow. The mahamudra says that if you are on the sea in a boat and let a bird fly from there, the bird will go out, get completely tired and will have to come back to the boat, because there is no other place to land. This is exactly like that. If you have the luxury of limitless time you can follow every thought and find out where they go, only to realize finally that they are not right. Eventually, by realizing that zillions of things you have been trying are not right, you finally will somehow stumble on the right one. However, we don't have all that much time.

Besides that, if you look into the Buddhist tradition, what we are really looking for is what Buddha has been looking for. We want to find what Buddha had found. We want to get what Buddha has got, how he overcame obstacles and what he found. We cannot experiment too much ourselves.

Be prepared for some difficulties. This boring historical part is going to be over soon and then it is going to get even more difficult. I would like to suggest that you read Tsong Khapa's lam rim chen mo translation that has come through Snow Lion. It is the Third Volume. The English title is:

The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment.

lam rim chen mo

Tsong kha pa

Audience: You have been saying that Buddhapalita and Chandrakirti made the reliable interpretations. Can you tell us also which are the not reliable ones and why they are mistaken, so that we know why the former are reliable?

Rimpoche: I will do that, and not just next week, but during all of this year. It will come up. We will discard a lot of wrong views, like the four Buddhist views and the non-Buddhist views. Even within the u ma, there are different views and finally, by the end of the year, only one will be left and you will then know why it is the right one. Honestly. That may be a political incorrect answer, but I really can't promise you that you will get the full answer tomorrow. That tomorrow will never come. But hopefully by the end of the year you will know.

If I had to say what the wrong paths are in a few short words it would be impossible. I already have trouble to present in English what zhi dön is, the external existence. Last time we tried to figure out the difference between me ga and ma yin ga. I heard some

interesting translation for that: me ga is absolute negation, and ma yin ga is exclusion. I don't know about that. In my mind every negation is an absolute negation, otherwise it would be a half-negation. We also cannot check all the different translations against each other. It would take too much time.

Audience: Can you say something more about Bhavaviveka?

Rimpoche: In Tibetan Bhavaviveka is known as Leg den gye be. For you it does not matter. To you both of that is Greek. To me Sanskrit is Greek. Earlier, when I didn't know much English I tried to use some Sanskrit terminology - which I don't know - together with English, which I didn't know. Sometimes I used Sanskrit and thought I was speaking English.

I think I have to close the shop now.

1/25/2005